I love those scriptures about Enoch! Giving a wonderful example of those who will be translated before the Trib.(flood}
I would simple say that Jude was indeed quoting what Enoch really (right before he was translated said. I dont even think he was able to finish his sermon. How Jude had this iformation or if he even did I am not sure, only sure he was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Administrator

Considering what Jude says about what Enoch said---I find it interesting---that Enoch said it in his day---it was part of Enoch's preaching/prophecy and what he said is just as true as anything else that Jude had to say---and to deny that Enoch said what he said is to deny what Jude says--and to deny what Jude says is to deny what Scripture says!!

Enoch told the people in his day that the Lord was coming with ten thousand of His saints---and what he said then---is still true for us---the Lord is coming with ten thousands of His saints!!

I would like to say amen to Blackbird, and thats a neat thought of books not surviving the flood... that would mean God must of told Moses what to write in Genesis, Moses was in touch with the HolyGhost as was Jude, Praise God!

Originally posted by Hope of Glory: The Apocrypha is quoted and cited many times throughout the NT. However, I don't think that elevates them to the level of Scripture, and they should be considered strictly deutero-canonical books.

Click to expand...

I did not say that quoting any books elevated them to Scripture. I said that what is recorded in the Bible is Scripture, the Word of God. Are you denying that?

Site Supporter

All of the OT and NT is scripture. That does not necessarily make the source of the quotes in the OT and NT scripture. Scripture is more than words. It is the living, active, breathing message of God.

Heb 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Quoting non-scripture does make the quotes a part of scripture for its own purposes, however it doesn't make the entire work scriptural.

However in response to the last post, I have yet to actually find any reason to believe that "word of God" refers to the scriptures, necesarrily. We've been calling it that for centuries, but is that necesarrily what it means?

However in response to the last post, I have yet to actually find any reason to believe that "word of God" refers to the scriptures, necesarrily. We've been calling it that for centuries, but is that necesarrily what it means?

Click to expand...

Whenever you see the expression "The Word of God", it is something that is referring to the mysteries of the Kingdom of the Heavens. That's why I always use "Scriptures" or "Bible".

However, prophecy is simply history that hasn't happened yet. Therefore, it's standard practice to translate a word in the past tense for a future event when prophesying. So, saying that "God came with 10 thousand of his holy ones" is the same as saying "God will come with 10 thousand of his holy ones". However, if you're unaware that it's prohecies, it could be confusing.

For what it's worth, here's the quote from the book of Enoch: "Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and to destroy the wicked, and to strive (at law) with all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against him."

Moderator

Originally posted by Hope of Glory: The Apocrypha is quoted and cited many times throughout the NT. However, I don't think that elevates them to the level of Scripture, and they should be considered strictly deutero-canonical books.

Click to expand...

I have examined the lists of such citations and am not thoroughly convinced. Some are stretches; the others can be explained in that the first century writers of the New Testament were drawing upon a common source of metaphors that they shared with others of their era.

Originally posted by rsr:
... the others can be explained in that the first century writers of the New Testament were drawing upon a common source of metaphors that they shared with others of their era.

Click to expand...

Well put. The book of Enoch simply records the same thing the Bible records. To say it originated in the book of Enoch and that the Bible is quoting it is unprovable.

Originally posted by pinoybaptist: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Ian: Many writers of Scripture cite other sources. That doesn't make the other sources Scripture.

Click to expand...

Does that mean 'there goes divine inspiration'? </font>[/QUOTE]Absolutely not. When the Scripture writer quotes from another source it becomes Scripture when he writes it down. It is not Scripture before that. Perhaps the Holy Spirit wanted the portion of the source to become Scripture and not the entire contents.